IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)

Libin Liu <liulb@zgclab.edu.cn> Sun, 29 October 2023 02:39 UTC

Return-Path: <liulb@zgclab.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: idr@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 230C8C14CEFE for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 19:39:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.102
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.102 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=zgclab.edu.cn
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id keu0tSi8hFDs for <idr@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 19:39:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from zg8tmtyylji0my4xnjqumte4.icoremail.net (zg8tmtyylji0my4xnjqumte4.icoremail.net [162.243.164.118]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60BBAC14CEFC for <idr@ietf.org>; Sat, 28 Oct 2023 19:39:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zgclab.edu.cn; s=dkim; h=Received:Date:From:To:Subject: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID; bh=NlaLDXpdOwpL/IdljDZO1Q3OY9ytk24/ONLWE/3zy1I=; b=ftQrtSzTR6nRF Hr/GB5OuQGwec4ReF3KqdwtB53+QgOrxzSNtKcnUvjbJf/QRW37mHs13zR0H39Lh vHgCQWhV5uNPkHQIOkS5w2XD0zbisjZLjymkPy/5rZMMsxAdTJpsXg5vmOS8qJTe Yv+r8DaqfK9OumTPwGMclQk6sDtyv0=
Received: from liulb$zgclab.edu.cn ( [120.244.190.66] ) by ajax-webmail-web5 (Coremail) ; Sun, 29 Oct 2023 10:39:35 +0800 (GMT+08:00)
X-Originating-IP: [120.244.190.66]
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 10:39:35 +0800
X-CM-HeaderCharset: UTF-8
From: Libin Liu <liulb@zgclab.edu.cn>
To: idr@ietf.org
X-Priority: 3
X-Mailer: Coremail Webmail Server Version 2023.2-cmXT5 build 20230915(bf90896b) Copyright (c) 2002-2023 www.mailtech.cn mispb-4df55a87-4b50-4a66-85a0-70f79cb6c8b5-tsinghua.edu.cn
In-Reply-To: <5726a595f74e4d10a0f43bfee4d0643c@h3c.com>
References: <BYAPR08MB4872D1FF1CB9AD8CF2888647B3DBA@BYAPR08MB4872.namprd08.prod.outlook.com> <5726a595f74e4d10a0f43bfee4d0643c@h3c.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_53308_556099675.1698547175162"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <46023830.3bf4.18b794d0efb.Coremail.liulb@zgclab.edu.cn>
X-Coremail-Locale: zh_CN
X-CM-TRANSID: zAQGZQD3C7vnxT1lVdHPAA--.19528W
X-CM-SenderInfo: holxzuo62juzldeovvfxof0/1tbiAQMTAGU8j2-w3QACsH
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1Ur529EdanIXcx71UUUUU7IcSsGvfJ3iIAIbVAYjsxI4VWxJw CS07vEb4IE77IF4wCS07vE1I0E4x80FVAKz4kxMIAIbVAFxVCaYxvI4VCIwcAKzIAtYxBI daVFxhVjvjDU=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/idr/B7Nkg9tMtynT4MkxXS6mLYE0-lY>
Subject: Re: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)
X-BeenThere: idr@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Inter-Domain Routing <idr.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/idr/>
List-Post: <mailto:idr@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idr>, <mailto:idr-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2023 02:39:48 -0000

Hi Chair and WG,

I support the adoption of this draft.  It is useful to identify a specific SID List with this attribute.

1. Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05 and drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?

No, they should not  to be merged .

2. Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?

Yes, it is more efficient to identify a specific SID List with this attribute.

3. Is there any technical problem with the description and procedures for handling the segment list identifier?

No.




Best,

Libin




From: Idr [mailto:idr-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Susan Hares
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2023 2:08 AM
To: idr@ietf.org<mailto:idr@ietf.org>
Subject: [Idr] WG adoption for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt (10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)


This begins a 2-week WG Adoption poll for draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id-05.txt
(10/20/2023 to 11/6/2023)
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id/


The authors should respond to this email with an email indicating whether they know of any IPR related to this draft.


This draft proposes a change to the
Tunnel Encaps Attribute for the SR Policy Tunnel type
in the segment list.  The change is to add
a segment list identifier:


         Tunnel Encaps Attribute (23)
            Tunnel Type: SR Policy
                Binding SID
                SRv6 Binding SID
                Preference
                Priority
                Policy Name
                Policy Candidate Path Name
                Explicit NULL Label Policy (ENLP)
                Segment List
                    Weight
                    Segment List Identifier
                    Segment
                    Segment


Please note that draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05.txt
Proposes adding a metric value to the segment list.


In your comments on adoption, please consider:


1.       Should we merge draft-zhang-idr-sr-policy-metric-05


And drft-lin-idr-sr-policy-seglist-id?


2.       Is there value in adding a segment list identifier?


3.       Is there any technical problem with the description and the procedures for handling the segment list identifier?


Cheerily, Sue Hares

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email